St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-03-03
Comment on the License Ordinance Adonted
by the Council and Subsequent
Legislation"
Third Minnesota Regiment Defended by
Gen. Andrews Before the Loyal
Legion Commandery.
Inquest over the Remains of Miss os-
born, Who Died From Too
Much Colchicum.
Appointments to Be Made by Mayor
SMITH Decisions Touching
Tax Cases.
THE LICENSE ORDINANCE.

What is Thong mt OF at..Op1u1Ons IoE
aud Against by Lawyers and Lay
men.
The action of the city council on Tuesday
eight in passing the ordinance which fixed
the license of saloons at $500 for two years
and half was the theme of a great deal of
comment Yesterday. 1t is safe to say that
many who read of the councils action
were surprised, whether enjoyablY or not.
There was little doubt expressed by those
who were familiar with the provisions of
the state high license law, passed the other
day, and also familiar with the terms OF the
repeating ordinance who were not pretty
we'll satisfied that the latter nullitied the
former so far as st. Paul is concerned.
Some and more especially the friends
of high license, were not slow to
denounce the action of the council
in strong terms, holding that the action was
not only too sudden, but that it would
prove of no effect. 1t was claimed that the
license law passed by the state could not
be lodged in this way, though there were
few who were informed on legal matters
who ventured this opinion. Many questions
as to the validity of the ordinance were
thrown out, and much speculation as to
whether the ordinance would hold If the
legislature were to pass law providing for
the enforcement of the high license bill, was
INDUCED in. City Attorney Murray was
interviewed by GLOBE reporter on several
of the points raised in the general discus
sion on the street corners and public resorts.
There is no question in my mind as 10 the
legality of the action of the council, and as to
the validity of the ordinance" said Mr.. Muir
say II have examined the law very care
fully"
lis there any question as to the right of the
n
timer
..There is not The city charter gives the
council the right 20 regulate all licenses, and
the city law heretofore in effect making
licenses expire on certain date was an ord-
nance, which was repealed by the one passed
Tuesday night. The high license law of the
state cannot affect licenses issued prior to the
date when that law goes into effect, and con-
Sequently licenses issued from now until
July will run until the expiration of the
time for which they were issued. That time
is two years and half. There was no pro-
vision Tuesday for the enforcement of the
state law, so the action of the council cannot
be construed as repugnant TO the state law"
''If the bill providing for the carrying out
of the high license law had been passed prior
to the passage of the new license ordinance,
would that have nullihed the action OF the
council?''
II think it would; but that bill had not
passed. feel pretty confident that the new
any mind OH any law points. 1t is simply
question of eXpediency.
The charter of ST. Paul, to which allusiOn
was made by Mr.. Murray, says little on the
subject of licenses except to give to the
council the power to do as it sees tit in
their regulation. The charter says:
The city council shall have power to license
and regulate all auctioneers, billiard tables.
4 tayerns, lager beer saloons, victu-
ailing houses and all persons vending, deal
ing in or disposing of spirituous, vinous,
malt or fermented liquors.
A prominent Republican attorney who
refused to be quoted on the question, re-
ferred to a decision of the supreme court
bearing on the question. 1t is in the case
of the State VS.. Cooke, volume "a of Min
nesota reports, the opinion being by Chief
Justice Gilhlan. Cooke was selling liquor
under a license in Rochester when the city
voted mo license" and undertook to con-
duct his business until his license expired,
resulting i'll the case in point. The court
says:
Licenses are mere temporary permits to do
what would otherwise be unlawful They are
not property in any legal sense, and the
holders thereof are bound by subsequent
legislation.
pie against the issuing OF licenses revoked
all licenses than in force.
OPINIONS OF OTHERS.
E. G. RogerS-Under the circumstances /
think it was very foolish thing for the coun-
Gil to do.
w. H. sanborn-When the ordinance
passed the council thought it would stand
and that is the reason opposed it. / don't
know how the Crandal bill effects it as l have
not read it.
Gov. McGill-I don't propose to crticise
acts of any common council. will let them
answer for their own SINS
- Fl. +. Notbohm, president of the Columbia
association-The $1,000 license bill is not a
law in St. Paul because the president of the
Columbia association did not sanction the
same
Attorney General Clapp-That is probably
suggested by all this discussion about the
long and short haul business
D. r. Noyes-In my opinion the city coun-
Gil made mistake, which will work against
the parties in whose interests the resolution
extending the time of liquor licenses was
passed. The action of the aldermen, showing
full intention to evade the law, shows the
need of stringent provisions to enforce it, and
this strengthens the temperance party in the
iouse. The city may become liable for dam
.ges in case of extended licenses If the pen
alties for the enforcement of the law are
legally provided for.
j. Ross Nichois-The action of the council
is ABOUT what l. expected. The only thing
that surprises me is that the aldermen did
not extend the licenses for ten years. They
might have extended them to that period
Just as well as to limit them rs they did.
should like 10 see the legislature pass the
prohibition bill now and try conclusions with
the city council OF st. Paul, so that we may
be able to see whether the state of Minnesota
has as much power as the st. Paul city co I'M
Gil q mere creation of the state. | was not in
favor of the prohibition bill before, but ! am
now. That's what it has got to come to at
last, anyway so far as can now see.
James H. Davidson-Its a monstrous out
rage. 1t is plain and undsputed attempt tC
defy the legislature, to circumvent and defy
the law of the land, and that. too, by a legally
constituted body that should set the example
er obeying the law, not that of defeating it,
No excuse or apology can be offered for the
action of the council. 1t is a very bad exam
pie. IL the council can thus defy the law why
should any one be arrested for violating the
law? The members of the council ought to be
ashamed of themselves for being engaged in
this disgraceful business. The people Of this
city ought TO bury them out of sight, but un-
fortunately If vote was to be taken to-day
am afraid the majority would be on the
wrong side. That's our misfortune. We are
IN the hands of the Saloons and so things viii
run along till the insults and wrongs of the
liquor element accumulate to such an extent
IN the magazine that 1t will burst and blow
abe saloons out of existence. AS to the legal
effect of the ordinance do not know. have
mot read il or thought over 1T. and therefore
would not like TO express an opinion.
Charles B. Brunson-The council is made
up of nice lot of pills, amt it? Still, dont
know as much can be said about it. If vote
should be taken to-day the probability is thai
the saloons would carry the city. Now VIVA
can be done? That the very question.
The house of representatives yesterday
passed the Crandal bill. which provides
heavN penalties for violation of laws relat
ing to the liquor traffic. 1t had previousl!
passed the senate, and takes effect imme
u - L. L. Ell.